Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-tsvart-lc-touch-2019-12-02-00
Request | Review of | draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
Deadline | 2019-12-16 | |
Requested | 2019-11-18 | |
Authors | Mark Nottingham | |
I-D last updated | 2020-06-30 (Latest revision 2020-01-05) | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -02
by Qin Wu
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dr. Joseph D. Touch |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/f1mhliuYmuq-4iSjual2-uJPro8 | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2019-12-02 |
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-tsvart-lc-touch-2019-12-02-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. There are no transport issues in this document. The document would benefit from an explanation as to the reason for the need for this revision and a summary of the differences with the version it replaces, even if only in an appendix. There is one significant issue related to this document that needs to be addressed before it can proceed. There is an outstanding errata from RFC7320 that remains unresolved. The BCP index, markings in the datatracker for these RFCs, and citations in this document are not aligned; that should be corrected (in all three places) so the appropriate citation in this document does not further propagate the error.